Trinity- True or False

by defd 215 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    By the time the account of John was written, the Greek Septuagint was in common use. I think there's plenty of contemporary license to suggest that the language is intentionally linked...

    Whether ya like that theology or not, it's plain that the writer of John was making many statements regarding the Divinity of Christ, the best example of which being at the mouth of Thomas, as I already suggested.

    I would add that this is quite apart from the Trinity debate, though it formed the basis of that evolving doctrine, especially during the following couple of years, and again at the councils leading up to and including Nicea.

  • Cygnus
    Cygnus

    Like I said elsewhere, the gospels are all a hodge-podge of ideas about who and what this one particular messiah-figure purported to be. Tons of ideas existed from 45 CE to c.450 CE. Eventually through much theological debate with lots of different people who had all sorts of theories it was reconciled that He was Man of Man, and truly God of God. And if I were I Christian, I would feel behooved to support that finalized idea.

  • Cygnus
    Cygnus

    And, LT, don't forget, as Greg Stafford had to keep telling Rob Bowman in their debate last May, JWs fully accept Jesus' divinity and godship. He is THEOS. Now exactly what that means takes on a Clintonian "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" type of thinking. I can see where the WT/Stafford/Malik are coming from in their theology/christology. I'd just feel like it'd be my bound duty to worship Jesus as Lord and God and accept the Trinity.... if I were a Christian, which thank Yahweh I'm not.

    Leo, I like how the sentence structure of Ps. 90 is similar to Jesus' words. I wonder if Furuli dealt with that text in his book. Oh well, I sold my copy on ebay.

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider
    What makes you think that saying “I am” has anything to do with Deity in the first place? And what is Diety. Does it mean Supreme Being or simply a nonhuman of importance or something such? What evidence do you offer for such a conclusion?

    And why does everyone ignore the question and context for why such a statement was uttered? It had nothing to do with a Hebrew text written thousands of years earlier in the book of the Law. So why are such scripture matches made and do they prove anything? If so how?

    JosephMalik: Are you sure Jesus didn`t mean to "hint" to the name of God when uttering those words? I recently saw a program (can`t remember it`s name), but the topic was "who was responsible for Jesus` death?". Was it the Roman authoroties, was it the jewish priests, or was it Jesus himself, provoking the jewish priests? One argument for the last possibility, was the fact that Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey! Jesus knew very well the scriptures of the Old Testament, in :

    Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

    ...and in choosing to enter Jerusalem on a donkey:

    Matthew 21:4-5 All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.

    ...He wanted to send a message to the people, and the Jewish priests (I am the Messiah). So when Jesus use words such as "I am"...in aramaic, and Jesus obviosuly knows what the OT-scriptures says! (he is also claimed to have been teaching jewish scholars outside the Temple, as a young boy) isn`t it (more than) likely that Jesus knows what Gods name, YHWH, means (I am/I exist, in hebrew), and isn`t it possible that his intentions then are to claim that he is God, in aramaic, his and his followers language? Although Jesus understood hebrew, it`s not clear whether his followers (fully) understood it? (I am not clear on how close/distant aramaic is from hebrew). Why would he otherwise utter these words? What followed after "I am"? If nothing "in particular" followed ("I am the Messiah", for example), and Jesus knew hebrew, and the meaning of Gods word in hebrew (aramaic is viewed as a hebrew dialect, or at least not to distant from hebrew, isn`t it?) was clear to Jesus, I can`t understand what else "I am" could mean.

    (I have to underline that I`m not trying to start a quarrel or heated debate with you, I am aware of your work, and I am only an amateur. I`m still trying to figure out what the Bible really says, now 13 years after I left the JWs)

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    1) The gospel of John was dependent on the Greek LXX, not the Hebrew OT. Thus the use of ego eimi in the LXX is quite relevant to appreciating its use in John.

    2) I appreciate the fact that the texts themselves are the evidence, not the opinions of scholars, but yet it is still valid to take into account their analyses and note consensus when it exists (particularly when it comes to evaluating the evidence).

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    Like I said elsewhere, ;the gospels are ;all a hodge-podge of ideas about who and what ;this one particular ;messiah-figure purported to be. ; Tons of ideas existed from 45 CE to c.450 CE. ; Eventually through much theological debate ;with lots of different people who had all sorts of theories it was reconciled that He was Man of Man, and truly God of God. ; And if I were I Christian, I would feel behooved to support that finalized ;idea.

    How about celebrating the diversity of opinion, the mystery, rather than feel compelled to profess one harmonizing theology? As long as Jesus is professed as Lord (which is part and parcel of Christianity) and you accept the offer of grace on your faith, what difference does it make whether or not you understand the niceties of theology? The naive confessions of faith of the early Christians seemed to work fine for them...

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Leo:

    The naive confessions of faith of the early Christians seemed to work fine for them...

    Works well for me, too.

    Whilst I have an appreciation for the doctrine of the Trinity, I dont see it as a salvation issue. The Divinity of Christ is more important, from a primitive Christian perspective.


    Cygnus:

    And, LT, don't forget, as Greg Stafford had to keep telling Rob Bowman in their debate last May, JWs fully accept Jesus' divinity and godship.

    He was talking out of his @ss. He might, but the WTS hasn't for quite some time. They pay only lip-service to John 1:1 as "a god".

    The JWs have very little concept of Jesus other than as an angel turned perfect human turned angel again. This is NOT divinity, by any stretch of the imagination!!!

  • jgnat
    jgnat

    Is that your final answer? LOL.

    http://millionaire.itv.com/millionaire/home.php

    Well put, Leolaia. I like your reasoning. I also like how this thread was resurrected from the trash-heap with some great minds, great thoughts. Thanks for contributing.

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    Helping resurrect threads is an old pastime of mine (albeit single-handedly would be a stretch). By golly, if I can resurrect one of Ballistic's, I can resurrect the dead!!!

  • inquirer
    inquirer

    defd

    Trinity- True or False

    inquirer --
    BLOODY FALSE I TELL YOU!

    I'll turn you into a trinityman if you won't shut up!!!! (Nah, just joking. :) )

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit